From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19813 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2010 23:06:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 19759 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Mar 2010 23:06:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:06:06 +0000 Received: (qmail 8639 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2010 23:06:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO macbook-2.local) (stan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 25 Mar 2010 23:06:04 -0000 Message-ID: <4BABEC56.5000507@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:06:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: Stan Shebs , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Handle errors in tracepoint target agent References: <4BAAB2E9.7020708@codesourcery.com> <201003251027.14862.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4BABE407.30609@codesourcery.com> <201003252242.05733.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <201003252242.05733.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg00869.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > On Thursday 25 March 2010 22:30:31, Stan Shebs wrote: > >>> FIXME? If not important, or if this just need to be as big enough >>> to cope with all supported archs, then we should drop the FIXME note, >>> and explain that instead. >>> >>> >> I was thinking somebody might know of a clever way for the compiler to >> get it into the test program... >> > > You could pass it down to gdb_compile as an extra #define > from the .exp, using additional_flags for example: > > additional_flags=-DREGBLOCK_SIZE=$regblocksize > > Is there a way to query GDB for this size, so the > .exp can get at it? If not, maybe we can add a maintenance > command for this? A fixed size per target doesn't > quite cut it, considering extended register sets, and > target descriptions. > Ugh. Given that this is a file format, and more particularly a type of file that we could get handed by users, I'm thinking I want to go back and tweak GDB to not care about its value much, and only require it to match the size of any fixed-size register blocks present in the trace file. Stan